There is an interesting fight brewing over the planned memorial to Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The owner of the land, Svonavec Inc., refuses to sell a critical part of the needed land and the relatives want President Bush to seize the property to allow them to start construction of the memorial so that it can be finished by 2011 — the tenth anniversary of the tragedy.
Patrick White, vice president of the group Families of Flight 93, has asked President Bush to empower the Secretary of the Interior to take the land. They are demanding 2200 acres for the memorial — much of which are owned by Svonavec. The company has refused to negotiate and the National Park Service has indicated that it is retaining an independent appraiser for 275 acres in dispute.
The government has set aside $58 million for the memorial. The company reportedly turned down a $250,000 offer from the Park Service as well as a $750,000 offer from Families of Flight 93. The company reportedly wants $10 million for the land and forced the Park Service to move the temporary memorial off his land, citing security reasons. The difference between $10 million and the price offered is a bit curious. Either the company is profiteering or the group is trying to force an effective corporate donation of the land. Notably, there have been three appraisals including a second appraisal that was never released by the service.
Mike Svonavec of Svonavec Inc. has complained that the National Park Service and Flight 93 groups are “trying to make my company and myself look like the bad guy in this.” They appear to have succeeded.
For the full story, click here.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“Anger directed at the wrong person is no substitute for fact-based counterexamples or reasoned debate.”
Nor is fabricating “anger” and attributing it to the other person a substitute for fact-based counterexamples or reasoned debate.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“I think you have me mistaken for someone else.”
Nope. Pretty sure I got the right Mespo.
“So believe it or not, and not to dissuade your fanciful imaginings of me being a 20 year old living in his moms basement, I actually possess the capability to examine data for myself, and even know a little bit more about it than I let on. … “See? It’s easy when you’re not focusing on trying to mock peoples intelligence.”
************
I think you have me mistaken for someone else. I have shown your POV noting but respect on this thread. Bob and I get a little testy but it’s a professional courtesy thing to bare our teeth once in a while. My real bile was reserved for the crazies who actually believe the government is in league with aliens and somehow precipitated this mess. Anger directed at the wrong person is no substitute for fact-based counterexamples or reasoned debate.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 8:21 am
“On a more pleasant topic, how to do you like the new gravtar? It’s Cicero.”
Was Cicero a large white breasted fellow with ridiculously large overbite? All I see is the shark.
As for how I “like” it, I’d be more impressed if you demonstrated the wherewithal to use your own photo, so I can at least see the face of my antagonist. I know it’s easier to hide behind the anonymity of the keyboard but since you asked.
I’d invite your insulting and self proclaimed superior sidekick Patty to post hers but I paid a lot for this monitor.
mespo727272 1, January 4, 2009 at 8:21 am
“WAYNEBRO:
I accept your doubts as we all have them but at some point we have to decide which is the most probable scenario. The official one of NIST, backed by evidence, or the doubts we have based on supposition and so-called “common sense.” I don’t want you to fall into the trap of vince who just accepts what he’s “heard” as true without any investigation.”
Well thanks for your concern Mespo. Its quite touching.
However to curb your fears you can rest assured regardless of your close and valuable friend Patty’s declarations of my lack of education, and my wholly “unprofessional career” and of course my complete and utter ignorance, I am, believe it or not, perfectly capable of thinking for myself.
In fact in my 17 years as a data engineer and security consultant I’ve actually submitted information for the NIST “SP” (Special Publication) papers, and even helped work on a few, not to mention consulting on technical books like the famous “INTERCONNECTIONS” (don’t bother, it’ll be over your head) and other technical materials and papers. So believe it or not, and not to dissuade your fanciful imaginings of me being a 20 year old living in his moms basement, I actually possess the capability to examine data for myself, and even know a little bit more about it than I let on.
As for your obsession of my using the word “embers” all I can say is if you can’t see the symbolism there then perhaps relaxing your sphincter a little might let you loosen up and recognize the comparison there. In fact, perhaps this definition of the word from Wiki will help you see the similitude.
“Embers are the glowing, hot coals made of greatly heated wood, coal or ‘other carbon based material’ that remain after, or sometimes precede a fire.”
See? It’s easy when you’re not focusing on trying to mock peoples intelligence. However, it is not my intention to permit you to coerce me into defending Bob’s positions even though you keep trying so hard. As I’ve stated to you repeatedly now based on the facts available I simply don’t know what happened on that morning. I also am quite confident that neither do you, based on your grasping to a poorly written, inconclusive and often convoluted report submitted to NIST based on some really creative computer modeling.
As I said earlier, the facts do not support the Bush administrations theories, regardless of what well respected agencies he attempts to funnel them through. There are questions out there. Real questions, and dismissing those asking questions by relegating them to the “conspiracy theorist” crowd is a tactic of the Neoconservatives.I’m sorry you feel its a tactic warranted here, but as you said, to each his own.
JT:
Since my own visage would scare away all but the most stout-hearted, I picked a hero from my youth. Who says Catholic School doesn’t confer lifelong benefits? This quote from Cicero hangs in my office:
Advice is judged by results, not intentions.
–Cicero (Ad Atticum)
Mespo:
As Cicero said, To each his own.(Suum Cuique)
I like the choice. Fits you well. After all, it was Cicero who stated “Our thoughts are free.” He also stated “The wise are instructed by reason; ordinary minds by experience; the stupid, by necessity; and brutes by instinct.” He would have used trolls for brutes, but the term did not exist at the time.
WAYNEBRO:
I accept your doubts as we all have them but at some point we have to decide which is the most probable scenario. The official one of NIST, backed by evidence, or the doubts we have based on supposition and so-called “common sense.” I don’t want you to fall into the trap of vince who just accepts what he’s “heard” as true without any investigation. That apparently hasn’t happened to you but referring to proven impacts as “embers” does your argument no credit and places you closer to the category of those who have made up their minds of something nefarious without the willingness to say so and then go about attacking contrary evidence without any real basis except to say its a priori knowledge which of course it cannot be. I hope you are not hiding your true opinion behind the mantle of unreasonable “doubts.”
On a more pleasant topic, how to do you like the new gravtar? It’s Cicero.
I have to ask you to dial down on the personal attacks, Patty C. While I recognize that a culinary devotee might gravitate to expressions about shutting pie holes, there is a civility rule on the blog and everyone’s views are welcomed equally. As one of our founding (and most valued) bloggers, I really need you to help maintain the decorum of the blog — and continue to fork over proven recipes with poignant observations!
Waynebro, from the very first moment you showed up here you’ve done nothing but display you ignorance.
How dare you, a high school drop out, attempt to argue with those of us with advanced degrees and ‘real’ ie professional jobs.
You should shut your pie hole and listen to mespo and me. You might actually learn something!
What would be even nicer is a rationale for why you chose to change my “doubts” into your “suspicions”.
You certainly have the right to think as you choose, but a rationale for your suspicions would be nice.
I’ve read the report. I’ve seen all the reports that are available online. I watched the events live as they happened all day on 911. The term “embers” was just a characterization. And that debris didn’t cause any other buildings to collapse on themselves. You keep steering us to these shows, and reports, and their convoluted computer simulation explanations of what caused not one but 3 buildings to collapse into a perfect footprint of themselves identical to controlled demolitions, but what you fail to realize is we’ve seen them already. We’ve heard the answers. We’ve seen the so called data. The “new” data mind you. Not the original data that the man presenting said data was fired for presenting. No we’re talking the new data. The data that’s come out under the auspices of the Bush administration and other so called “independent 3rd parties” who like Bush, wanted to rush to get answers to close the case prior to Bush leaving office.We’ve seen the answer Mespo. The problem is we’re just not buying them.
Feel free to yourself but you shouldn’t insult others intelligence or sanity for merely refusing to accept data that so many other experts also do not accept. There’s two schools of thought out there, but only one of them is being heard. The other is being shouted down as soon as it presents one tidbit of opposing data by declaring those presenting that data as “conspiracy theorist nutjobs” thus silencing any further inquiry into the matter.
There’s real questions out there and we’ve seen your answers. We’re just not buying them.
waynebro:
If you read NIST’s report and see the pictures, these were not flying embers but actual impacts from the debris of the falling Tower that started the various fires. I think the Report is worth your time to review.
I think Bob’s suspicions are firmly cemented in the camp of reason over emotion.
There’s real questions out there that the administrations “answers” just do not answer. The idea of “flying embers” reaching an office bldg and igniting it causing it to burn so hot that it too “collapses in on itself identical to a controlled demolition” is ….well…lets just say that it is reasonable for someone to doubt such a fanciful explanation. Particularly considering these magical flying burning pieces of debris that were apparently invisible to the camera, didn’t seem to burn down any other buildings.
Just the one.
Just the one with all the questionable documents that Cheney wanted destroyed.
…ahem….
See, if I were to accept such, …let us say “creative” explanations, like I said last night you’d first have to get me pretty drunk, not box wine drunk either…I”m talking Makers Mark stumblebum drunk,.. and then of course buy me dinner. Only then would I allow myself to be so “easy” with the facts.
Bob,Esq:
To engage directly, I see no reasonable way that the NIST report can be called unfalsifiable. In fact, it was tested by outside consultants who reviewed every assumption and retested its conclusion. This fact alone refutes that argument completely. Numerous scenarios were proposed and tested and some, like fuel fires, were ruled out. This to me is the essence of the scientific method. I saw no rush to judgment either since the process took two years to complete not weeks or months.
In addition NIST utilized the following organizations for technical expertise and to serve on its advisory board:Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).
NIST is uniquely positioned to investigate this collapse receiving high marks for other failure investigations. NIST either has led or participated in the following:
* terrorist bombing, Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Okla., 1995;
* terrorist bombing, World Trade Center, New York, N.Y., 1993;
* building fire, Happylands Social Club, Bronx, N.Y., 1992;
* building fire, Dupont Plaza Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1986;
* collapse of walkway, Hyatt Regency Hotel, Kansas City, Mo., 1981; and
* condominium collapse, Cocoa Beach, Fla., 1981.
In fact, NIST did investigate alternate theories such as the controlled demolition theory and the missile attack theory an found NO evidence of such an event. See NIST Fact Sheet and Section 3.3 of the Report which rule out blast theories due to inconsistent window breakage patterns associated with blasts and inconsistent sound wave patterns.
On your conspiracy argument, you must know that all of the independent organizations signed off on the final report an dthus were aware of its findings. That means each was aware of its conclusions and certainly are are of them now. None has voiced any opposition.
I must say that you have an exceptionally suspicions take on this issue with little evidence to go on, and seem willing to accept any conclusion except the one that is put forth by the best qualified organization we have to investigate it and the one most scientifically tested, scrutinized, and peer reviewed. Strange for a person usually firmly cemented in the camp of reason over emotion.
Mespo:
“Not to topple your world but here is the press release from NIST explaining the role of the North Tower debris that did ignite fires in the the building. I do prefer to accept scientific explanations over idle speculation:”
Mespo, if you truly prefer the scientific method then why do you treat it with such disdain? According to our friend Karl Popper, a scientific theory that is not falsifiable is no scientific theory at all; i.e., unless the “theory” can, in some way, be tested as false by an observation or a physical experiment, it’s pure horse shit. For example, a ‘scientific theory’ that FAILS TO ADDRESS interconnected facts and phenomena that cannot be explained, thereby contradicting the validity of said theory, is not falsifiable and therefore invalid. To be clear, the theory is invalid because it demands that any test of its validity to blindly accept the untested assumptions upon which it is based.
Still with me?
Just one example of key factor conveniently ignored by NIST’s version of the ‘scientific method’ was the existence of molten steel and partially evaporated steel.
From the NY Times:
“A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.”
(link removed awaiting moderation)
And not for nothing, I never breathed a word about ‘conspiracy’ other than to remind you it was one of three inchoate crimes with uniquely specific elements. Inserting one of your premises into my argument and thence attempting to reduce it to absurdity, with a sad cliche argument no less, is truly below you.
But assuming for argument sake that we were discussing ‘conspiracy,’ as one lawyer to another, I would politely remind you of just how rediculous you sound with comments like:
“To allege conspiracy to conceal facts, you must necessarily conclude that hundreds of people with advanced degrees from all scientific disciplines conspired to deprive their country of the truth about the biggest tragedy in most of their livetimes. That, to me, is the far-fetched aspect of your contention.”
Query: Since when in the history of jurisprudence has proving the existence of a conspiracy necessitated a showing of KNOWLEDGE on the part of all actors? Do I hear it said that the key element of a chain conspiracy is no longer knowledge of a large operation? If five people conspire to commit atrocities by dividing up all the conspiracy widget work to thousands of individuals who have no idea of any large operation, do we incarcerate them and every member of society who helped them, and so on and so on??
Was the BBC engaged in a ‘conspiracy’ when it aired this?
(link removed awaiting moderation)
No.
But it does raise the question of how a broadcast station was informed that an unprecedented event in the history of steel buildings had ‘already’ happened 20 minutes earlier than it actually did.
In the future, save the sophomoric ‘conspiracy’ talking points for someone who’s not insulted by them. And do please attempt to make so much as an appearance of engaging in argument by addressing at least some of my points in your counter argument.
SIYOM,
Bob
Mespo:
“Not to topple your world but here is the press release from NIST explaining the role of the North Tower debris that did ignite fires in the the building. I do prefer to accept scientific explanations over idle speculation:”
Mespo, if you truly prefer the scientific method then why do you treat it with such disdain? According to our friend Karl Popper, a scientific theory that is not falsifiable is no scientific theory at all; i.e., unless the “theory” can, in some way, be tested as false by an observation or a physical experiment, it’s pure horse shit. For example, a ‘scientific theory’ that FAILS TO ADDRESS interconnected facts and phenomena that cannot be explained, thereby contradicting the validity of said theory, is not falsifiable and therefore invalid. To be clear, the theory is invalid because it demands that any test of its validity to blindly accept the untested assumptions upon which it is based.
Still with me?
Just one example of key factor conveniently ignored by NIST’s version of the ‘scientific method’ was the existence of molten steel and partially evaporated steel.
From the NY Times:
“A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.”
http://tinyurl.com/9u7xgz
And not for nothing, I never breathed a word about ‘conspiracy’ other than to remind you it was one of three inchoate crimes with uniquely specific elements. Inserting one of your premises into my argument and thence attempting to reduce it to absurdity, with a sad cliche argument no less, is truly below you.
But assuming for argument sake that we were discussing ‘conspiracy,’ as one lawyer to another, I would politely remind you of just how rediculous you sound with comments like:
“To allege conspiracy to conceal facts, you must necessarily conclude that hundreds of people with advanced degrees from all scientific disciplines conspired to deprive their country of the truth about the biggest tragedy in most of their livetimes. That, to me, is the far-fetched aspect of your contention.”
Query: Since when in the history of jurisprudence has proving the existence of a conspiracy necessitated a showing of KNOWLEDGE on the part of all actors? Do I hear it said that the key element of a chain conspiracy is no longer knowledge of a large operation? If five people conspire to commit atrocities by dividing up all the conspiracy widget work to thousands of individuals who have no idea of any large operation, do we incarcerate them and every member of society who helped them, and so on and so on??
Was the BBC engaged in a ‘conspiracy’ when it aired this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk
No.
But it does raise the question of how a broadcast station was informed that an unprecedented event in the history of steel buildings had ‘already’ happened 20 minutes earlier than it actually did.
In the future, save the sophomoric ‘conspiracy’ talking points for someone who’s not insulted by them. And do please attempt to make so much as an appearance of engaging in argument by addressing at least some of my points in your counter argument.
SIYOM,
Bob
Bob,Esq:
Not to topple your world but here is the press release from NIST explaining the role of the North Tower debris that did ignite fires in the the building. I do prefer to accept scientific explanations over idle speculation:
“Determining the probable collapse sequence for WTC 7, NIST found that the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, and the fires burned out of control on six lower floors. The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories.”
You’ll also be happy to know that many outside technical experts were consulted in the report such as well respected Applied Research Associates. To allege conspiracy to conceal facts, you must necessarily conclude that hundreds of people with advanced degrees from all scientific disciplines conspired to deprive their country of the truth about the biggest tragedy in most of their livetimes. That, to me, is the far-fetched aspect of your contention. They could certainly be wrong, but that is a far cry from deducing that the government somehow precipitated all of this for its own nefarious designs. Paranoia is a bad substitute for reason.
Mespo:
“BTW Bldg 7 collapsed due to its location, design, damage from the falling North Tower (new photos clearly show damage to the Building’s south side which faced the North Tower) and the un-fought fires ignited on various floors of the building which weaken the connections between the steel girders, per the National Institute of Standards and Technology. I know that opinion pales before the options of the “crazies” and that crowd at “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” headed by Richard Gage but after two years of exhaustive research that’s NIST’s conclusion.”
Actually Mespo, you seem to have become so fixated on retaining your ‘tranquil beliefs’, and opposed to engaging in earnest argumentation on this matter, that you’ve given up on re-examining your position; much less bothering to get your facts straight. In fact, you simply parroted the baseless claims made, and fraudulently held out as ‘truth,’ by Popular Mechanics(aka Grease Monkey Monthly).
Perhaps realizing it could never reconcile asymmetrical damage with a PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL collapse, NIST said in its final report:
NIST: “Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.” (NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii)
I know, you’re probably sitting back thinking WTC 7 didn’t need any damage from the other towers with those ‘massive’ fires fed by all that fuel oil in the building; right?
NIST: “However, fuel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.” (NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii)
I think it was Jon Lovitz as the compulsive liar who said “When in doubt, just keep changing your story…yeah, that’s the ticket.”
But don’t worry, by employing pathological science to ignore any facts contradicting their ‘final theory’, e.g. the MOLTEN f’n STEEL existing at the basements of all three buildings for months, NIST claims it explained how a COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED EVENT, in the century long history of steel buildings, occurred on 9/11.
And speaking of the BBC, I’m wondering why NIST didn’t contract for their help in preparing the report; seeing how the BBC broadcasted the details of WTC 7’s UNPRECEDENTED demise 20 MINUTES BEFORE IT HAPPENED.
Sorry Mespo, my refusal to allow anyone to force me to lie to myself and live within those lies extends further than my hatred of the Bush administration. Consider it a categorical imperative if you will.
SIYOM,
Bob